Tuesday, 23 April 2013

On Human Rights and Their Basis for Civil Law

Politics can be divided into two spheres: economic policies and social policies. Economic policies refer to those that govern over trade, and, by extension, currency. Social policies refer to those that govern over human social affairs, etc. There are then subsequent sub-divisions, such as foreign policies, which govern interaction with other nations, and domestic policies, which govern affairs in one's own nation. There are, of course, many different approaches to these areas, and how each are to be handled. Any law or set of laws must be based upon human rights, and, by extension, human freedom. Human rights are exclusive claims that refer to an individual, namely a claim to having a right to do some action. Furthermore, respecting said rights does not require any additional action on the part of other individuals to be upheld. For example, in order for the right to free speech to be upheld, all that is required is for people to refrain from restricting the speech of others. Whereas something that requires additional action to be upheld is not a right, but rather an inclusive claim that refers to individuals outside of oneself. For example, in order for free healthcare to be upheld, it required that somebody else to provide that healthcare. Since nobody is required to provide healthcare to another, this is invalid. Another scenario might be where others are required to pay for the healthcare of those who cannot afford it, but since nobody is required to pay for the healthcare of another, this is again invalid, and not a right. Anything which is a violation of a human right should thus be against the law, whereas things that aren't human rights do not need to be enforced by law.

Thus, when it comes to policy and law making, the fundamental issue should be that of human rights. A government, if one is to exist at all, must therefore be concerned with upholding these human rights. The problem with the governments of today is that they do not do this, but rather force control onto us, in direct violation of many human rights. Governments steal from their citizens via taxation, governments censor the speech of their citizens, governments do not allow citizens to defend themselves by banning firearms, etc., governments do not allow citizens to eat and drink what they like by banning various substances and imposing restrictions on the consumption of other substances, governments inflict police brutality on their own citizens whilst simultaneously funding wars in other nations, governments insist on economic and social control. However, not only do such laws and policies violate human rights at every level, evidence and experience has time and time again shown that all such principles do is to prevent human flourishing, and actively engender human suffering. In short, modern governments are a cancer to this world, a cancer that must be excised in toto if we are to flourish and survive as a species.

The ultimate end-goal for any civilised society interested in promoting and upholding human freedom and flourishing is thus a stateless society. The problem is how to arrive at such a state, given how steeped we are in statism in this modern age. Indeed, so many people have been so hopelessly intoxicated in the myths of statism that they cannot even envisage an alternate scenario. We are not yet ready for such a state of freedom, since many are still so throughly deluded, brainwashed, and inculcated that they would simply be unable to function without the state telling them what to do, say, and think. Thus, we must head to such a state slowly, and incrementally. We must slowly undo the damage of the disease that is statism, one step at a time, until all trace of the virile infection is gone. The first step would definitely be the removal of the current system of government in its entirety, in Australasia, Britain, Europe, and North America. The current political class are nothing but a caste of parasitic organisms, slowly draining away at their nations' resources, driving working citizens further into poverty as they gorge themselves at the expense of the general public. We need politicians who are actual civil servants, instead of being self-serving oligarchs. We need politicians who are accountable to the people they are meant to represent.

Whether through reform or revolution, the current political class must be ousted. Our very freedom depends upon it. We cannot allow this rot to fester any longer, as the power of the enemies of freedom grows as time goes on. Contrary to popular belief, however, such political corruption does not result from capitalism, but from socialism and the left. Many people blame capitalism without thinking, but those who do so are simply ignorant of what capitalism is. Capitalism is free market system, where people are free to trade as they like with who they like. Whereas modern trade is tightly controlled and regulated by the state. The term 'privatisation' is often used as a kind of dirty word by leftists, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with private ownership. Indeed, the people who complain about privatisation seem completely ignorant of the fact that the government is still picking winners and losers. Corporatism is thus very much left-wing, since a powerful state that cripples small competition with regulations and bestows bailouts and subsidies upon them is exactly what these big corporations want. After all, Benito Mussolini famously remarked that such marriage of state and business, i.e. corporatism, is the very definition of fascism. It was also a centre-piece of Hitler's National Socialist economy, which ultimately led to Germany running huge deficits and losing the second world war.

Indeed, it is amusing to me that the Nazis are considered 'far-right,' given that their economic policies were the same as those enacted by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and are the same as the economic policies employed by governments the world over. The policies of Barrack Obama, and George Bush, the policies of David Cameron, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown. Though they may differ superficially, they are at heart cut from the same cloth. They are inherently authoritarian, and inherently left-wing. They may not be as far left as the likes of communism, but they are still left-wing all the same. The problem is that people do not understand the meaning of such terminology, so much so that, lamentably, the meanings of such term have deviated substantially from their original meaning in popular usage. Whilst it one day might prove necessary to utilise new terminology, I see no reason in using such terms in their original sense. I shall then simply explain what I mean when I use such terminology, given that the general public seemingly have no clue as to the original meanings, as aforementioned.

Traditionally, political parties have been assessed according to a left-ring spectrum. However, this left-right spectrum only covers economic policy. There is another scale, one which we may call 'up-down,' which covers social policy. Those on the left favour government control over economy, whereas those on the right favour economic freedom. Those who are 'up' favour government control over our social lives, whereas those 'down' favour social freedom, or liberty, if you will. Capitalism, being right-wing, is thus simply an economic system characterised by economic freedom, free from the machinations of an oppressive state. Communism, being left-wing, favours total government control over the economy, which, as history has shown, is an untenable idea that leads to nothing but poverty. Socialism is a far more insidious brand of leftism, however. Indeed, the West has been mired in socialism since the mid-20th century, yet armies of naive and deluded angst-ridden teenagers claim we live in an age of capitalist oppression. Whilst there are those who certainly presume themselves knowledgable enough to pontificate upon these issues, so much so that they feel the need to proclaim, in their official capacity and just some blokes on the internet, that economic freedom leads to poverty, this is palpably untrue. Every example of 'capitalism' put forward by these enemies of freedom are nothing but examples of economic control, NOT economic freedom.

It is possible, however, for one to be right, but also 'up,' that is to say an authoritarian capitalist. One who maintains social control and economic freedom. Just as it is possible for one to be left and 'down,' that is to say a libertarian socialist. Whilst such possibilities exist, and indeed are positions that have been held to, such mixtures are inherently contradictory. It is either freedom, or no freedom. Thus, I see no reason whatsoever for one to embrace economic freedom whilst denying social freedom. Just as I see no logical connection between social freedom and economic control and oppression. Given that human rights are paramount for any civilised society, we must embrace both social and economic freedom if we are to prevail against sky touching castles and dark palaces where evil never dies. Whereas, if we wish to return to the morbid reich, then all we need do is simply to remain compliant to the powers that be and their black velvet and skulls of steel.

In a free society, socially we would be free to do as we please (providing that the rights of others are respected and not infringed), whereas economically we would be far better off. We would be free to do trade as we please (again, providing that no rights are infringed) and we would no longer be suffering an economic crisis. Rather, our economy would soar, as we would no longer be bound by the oppressive strictures of a belligerent, malevolent state. Every economic crisis has been engineered by government decree. I am not suggesting any wilful conspiracy, however. Rather, I put down such a state of affairs purely to human stupidity. It is no coincidence that politicians are economically illiterate morons, however, they are at least intelligent enough to maintain their current status quo. Will you continue to suffer under their status quo, or will you say that enough is enough and that we, the people, decide our own fate? Many of you already know how ill these times are, yet you do nothing because of fear, asking 'but what can we do?' We can rise up and confront such a blatant disregard for human wellbeing and force it out. I for one am not willing to consign myself to a fate of being lorded over by those who presume to be above us. I for one have stared into the abyss of oblivion unblinking, and I'll be damned if I don't do my best to avoid it.

A form of minimal government might be necessary for a time to ensure that such laws are upheld, and I certainly recognise that a stateless society might never be achieved, but I'm willing to at least give freedom a chance. Again, I am not suggesting a radical upheaval, but rather a gradual move to such a state. Although I am suggesting we take action to ensure that our freedom is protected. We must unite as one, and rise up in protest. A people should not be afraid of their government, but, rather, a government should be afraid of its people. We must demand our freedom be respected, and if our authoritarian governments are not willing, then we must overthrow them and imprison those responsible for miring us in the current economic crisis. Whether or not people will heed such a call is another matter. I expect many who read this would rather remain intoxicated in their myths, shackled to the delusions fed to them by the state they claim to oppose. Others still readily embrace the terror of tyranny and oppression, a folk as wicked and foul as those currently in power. It is for this reason that I care not to argue my case in depth. Indeed, it does not matter how much evidence I present, the faithful believers in the providence of the state will reject it all. Those interested can do their own research, although I would be more than happy to explicate upon the evidence for my position should those enquire. This is mostly just an impassioned rant against the current system.